Tim Cook Ordered to Attend 7-Hour Deposition in Apple vs. Epic Games Lawsuit

[kaielement]

Side note Fortnite is not available on the Google Play Store Either.

 

[Rob_2811]

Side note Fortnite is not available on the Google Play Store Either.

Yes Epic are suing Google aswell.

 

[ddddtufbitu f]

Tim Cook is just being an *******. There's nothing new to that. I mean he earns so much money why not lose a few million dollars but earn them back because of the other items. Am I right or am I right.

 

[MacBH928]

There is no way i am wasting 7 hours of my lifetime in a court being the innocent one. Unless there is like compensation if I am right, a worthwhile of my 7 hours.

 

[PC_tech]

..

 

[PC_tech]

There is no way i am wasting 7 hours of my lifetime in a court being the innocent one. Unless there is like compensation if I am right, a worthwhile of my 7 hours.

You’re not the CEO of a billion dollar company so you don’t need to worry.

 

[Maximara]

The can analogy is a poor one for technology in general, suffice to say I can buy 3rd party replacements for most factory parts on a car, and the carmaker cannot prevent me from installing them, nor can they void warranties on the factory parts due to the presence of 3rd party ones.

The problem is it isn't that simple. The AAA garage I used states there wasn't enough VWs to warrant getting the $100,000 diagnosis machine. Without that machine you are just blindly replacing parts. Better yet some cars have this little quirk that if you disconnect the battery the internal computer resets and has to be recalibrated by a dealer for the car to even start because the onboard computer and software to recode it are protected under the DMCA.

The presence of ANY bad apples falsifies the claim that Apple controlling the only source of apps provides user-safety. That claim implies that 3rd party app stores would be inherently less safe than Apple, and presumes that 3rd party app stores wouldn't trade on being *more* trustworthy than Apple, or on having *better* app review.

Totally nonsense.

 

[Maximara]

Sorry, I don't accept your arguments at all.

It is apple locked the bootloader to prevent 3rd-party os.

As is there right under the DMCA. See the Psystar lawsuit. Never mind it is untrue as virtualization is possible.

It is apple locked the os to prevent 3rd-party market.

Apple owns Libreoffice and all other opensource software?! That is basically what this nonsensical "prevent 3rd-party market" means.

 

[Maximara]

Yes Epic are suing Google aswell.

Which makes both lawsuits stupid as how can you have a monopoly in the same market (smart phones)? Epic doesn't deem to understand that "mono" means one.

 

[mattspace]

Which makes both lawsuits stupid as how can you have a monopoly in the same market (smart phones)? Epic doesn't deem to understand that "mono" means one.

Because 👏 the 👏 "market" 👏 is 👏 not 👏 "smartphones" 👏

Apple controls a market, "the iOS Smartphone market", and within that market, competition policy still applies.

Within that market, Apple has a history of using their gatekeeper role in an abusive fashion, to prop up unrelated Apple commercial activities (transaction processing & download hosting) whose prices (30% of revenue) are uncompetitive compared to open-market (~6%) alternatives.

Competition adjudicators don't use "baby's first book of market definitions" when deciding cases like this.

 

[Abazigal]

Yes Epic are suing Google aswell.

Which is ironic, considering that one of the “solutions” given here was to allow iOS users to side load apps.

I said it before, and I will say it again. Epic cannot win this battle. The developer and consumer pressure Epic hoped would force Apple into capitulation never materialised. If anything, it has only gotten Apple to dig in and counter-sue Epic.

When Epic loses (and they will), the consequences will be dire for the entire app ecosystem. Apple will have no incentive to make concessions to developers because its legal victory will stand as a symbol of its unassailable authority over iOS.

Epic has chosen to stake the goodwill of Apple and the well-being of developers in this reckless gamble with Apple, the outcome of which benefits only themselves (because at best, they will be allowed to run their own App Store and charge other developers a fee to use it).

Epic, and all its supporters, will find themselves on the wrong side of history soon enough.

 

[Td1970]

The point is the fact that you, or anybody else, can't use software that isn't locked down by Apple or wouldn't actually know which app to use without Apples App Store to advertise it to you is a completely irrelevant argument.

This lawsuit is a challenge to Apples anticompetitive behaviour and its use of the App Store to neuter the competition and offer sweetheart deals to anybody who can further its business interests. (see the link I posted above about their little arrangement with Amazon).

Apple liberally interpret their 'rules' to suit themselves. There is no level playing field to be had in the app store, certainly not if you run a business that competes with Apple.

I've honestly no interest in Fortnite, I've never played it and probably never will but Epics campaign against Apple has been fantastic.

Apple are everything they use to rail against and like several of the other tech giants they need regulating before they stifle innovation and harm competition anymore that they already have.

When you usually win. You change and think you can play by different rules.

 

[I7guy]

When you usually win. You change and think you can play by different rules.

What different rules? Epic is looking to change the rules of the game through this lawsuit. It's anybody's guess whether they have a snowballs' chance in you know where of succeeding.

 

[Maximara]

Because 👏 the 👏 "market" 👏 is 👏 not 👏 "smartphones" 👏

Apple controls a market, "the iOS Smartphone market", and within that market, competition policy still applies.

As I have pointed out again and again and again this is nonsense. Can you easily side load non-licensed programs on your X-Box? Your Nintendo? No? Then how in the name of sanity is that any way different from what Apple does with iOS?!

Within that market, Apple has a history of using their gatekeeper role in an abusive fashion, to prop up unrelated Apple commercial activities (transaction processing & download hosting) whose prices (30% of revenue) are uncompetitive compared to open-market (~6%) alternatives.

Per Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard that is the wrong market:
Steam, Google, GOG, Microsoft: 30%
Playstation, Xbox, Nintento: 30%
Apple, Google: 30%
Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart: 30%
Humble Bundle: 25%
Epic: 12%
Itch.io: developer's choice

This open market you are talking about is represented by Itch.io not Epic.

 

[Ethosik]

It’s almost as if people haven’t watched any of the videos that I linked earlier in this thread where an actual corporate lawyer addresses all this. This is nothing like railroad access or what MS did with IE and Windows.

This one is a good starter….scrub to 26mins:

Thank you. PLEASE people check out this video. Saying Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution is just like saying Sony has one for Playstation games (releasing physical media still requires a cut sent to Sony).

As explained in the video, the argument that "Apple has a monopoly on iOS development" is basically an argument you can apply to any storefront or any company really. Adobe has a monopoly on Photoshop licenses.

Because 👏 the 👏 "market" 👏 is 👏 not 👏 "smartphones" 👏

Apple controls a market, "the iOS Smartphone market", and within that market, competition policy still applies.

Within that market, Apple has a history of using their gatekeeper role in an abusive fashion, to prop up unrelated Apple commercial activities (transaction processing & download hosting) whose prices (30% of revenue) are uncompetitive compared to open-market (~6%) alternatives.

Competition adjudicators don't use "baby's first book of market definitions" when deciding cases like this.

Why do people clap after every word? Please watch the video posted by theotherphil. If this goes south for Apple, then we also need Xbox, Playstation, Switch, and many more companies/products to massively change. This will be HARMFUL for the consumer.

 

[mattspace]

As I have pointed out again and again and again this is nonsense. Can you easily side load non-licensed programs on your X-Box? Your Nintendo? No? Then how in the name of sanity is that any way different from what Apple does with iOS?!

Games consoles are not general-purpose computers. The economics of the two are are completely different. Microsoft, Sony etc lose money on consoles to increase the market, and amount of money left in consumers hands to buy games. Apple makes money on their phones, and is happy to constrict the market as a "premium" product maker, thus reducing the addressable market for developers, and consuming the available money to buy apps.

Per Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard that is the wrong market:
Steam, Google, GOG, Microsoft: 30%
Playstation, Xbox, Nintento: 30%
Apple, Google: 30%
Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart: 30%
Humble Bundle: 25%
Epic: 12%
Itch.io: developer's choice

This open market you are talking about is represented by Itch.io not Epic.

"Industry standard" isn't the issue - Epic's case is that Apple is using its gatekeeper / monopolist role in controlling the iOS market, to unlawfully establish a secondary monopoly in hosting & billing within the iOS market. As Epic and multiple third party developers have stated, the open market price for what Apple provides (hosting space, download bandwidth, and transaction processing), is around 6%.

That case can be heard in isolation, based only on Apple's behaviour in isolation. Just as Apple was charged, tried, and convicted for breaking competition law regarding the fixing of eBook prices, when they were only a minority player within the industry.

 

[mattspace]

Please watch the video posted by theotherphil. If this goes south for Apple, then we also need Xbox, Playstation, Switch, and many more companies/products to massively change. This will be HARMFUL for the consumer.

Games consoles are not general-purpose computers. Smartphones are. More importantly, Apple is being sued for what Apple does, not what anyone else in the industry does. If Apple breaks the law, it doesn't become OK if everyone else is breaking the law.

 

[I7guy]

Games consoles are not general-purpose computers. Smartphones are. More importantly, Apple is being sued for what Apple does, not what anyone else in the industry does. If Apple breaks the law, it doesn't become OK if everyone else is breaking the law.

There are a number of MR members who do not believe ipads/iphones are general purpose computers. Apple is not breaking the law as the suit is not a criminal proceeding.

 

[I7guy]

Games consoles are not general-purpose computers. The economics of the two are are completely different. Microsoft, Sony etc lose money on consoles to increase the market, and amount of money left in consumers hands to buy games. Apple makes money on their phones, and is happy to constrict the market as a "premium" product maker, thus reducing the addressable market for developers, and consuming the available money to buy apps.


"Industry standard" isn't the issue - Epic's case is that Apple is using its gatekeeper / monopolist role in controlling the iOS market, to unlawfully establish a secondary monopoly in hosting & billing within the iOS market. As Epic and multiple third party developers have stated, the open market price for what Apple provides (hosting space, download bandwidth, and transaction processing), is around 6%.

The percentage is irrelevant as those who sign into the dev program agree to the license.

That case can be heard in isolation, based only on Apple's behaviour in isolation. Just as Apple was charged, tried, and convicted for breaking competition law regarding the fixing of eBook prices, when they were only a minority player within the industry.

Good luck to Epic in bringing this lawsuit. They are going to need it.

 

[Ethosik]

Games consoles are not general-purpose computers. Smartphones are. More importantly, Apple is being sued for what Apple does, not what anyone else in the industry does. If Apple breaks the law, it doesn't become OK if everyone else is breaking the law.

No Epic's ENTIRE argument is Apple has a monopoly on iOS App Distribution. If the market is THAT NARROW, we also need to apply the SAME markets to nearly every other business in existence.

Seriously, watch the video....its from an actual lawyer.

 

[mattspace]

No Epic's ENTIRE argument is Apple has a monopoly on iOS App Distribution. If the market is THAT NARROW, we also need to apply the SAME markets to nearly every other business in existence.

Seriously, watch the video....its from an actual lawyer.

No. "We". Don't. Don't fall into this trap of childish thinking that laws have to be applied to everything identically, or that everything is just a slippery slope to everything else.

Apple's market for App distribution for smartphones is fundamentally different to games console markets. Smartphones are more like general purpose computers than they are like games consoles (Apple's "what's a computer?" campaign). General purpose computers are not locked down to a single appstore, and there's no reason iOS should be, either.

Or...

If Apple's iOS appstore absolutely can't possibly coexist with other appstores... it should be regulated as a common carrier, on an auditable cost-recovery-only basis.

Also, you suggest all other markets would have to be restructured to break exclusionary horizontal and vertical integration, like that's a bad thing. e.g the car example where I can choose to replace any parts I like with third party parts, and have it warranty serviced by anyone I like, and manufacturers are required to provide diagnostic tools on a FRAND basis.

Actual lawyers fought Apple's case against the US government when Apple was convicted of conspiring to fix the price of eBooks. Lawyers are wrong statistically 50% of the time.

 

[cmaier]

No. "We". Don't. Don't fall into this trap of childish thinking that laws have to be applied to everything identically, or that everything is just a slippery slope to everything else.

Apple's market for App distribution for smartphones is fundamentally different to games console markets. Smartphones are more like general purpose computers than they are like games consoles (Apple's "what's a computer?" campaign). General purpose computers are not locked down to a single appstore, and there's no reason iOS should be, either.

Except no court has ever agreed with this.

 

[mattspace]

Except no court has ever agreed with this.

No court has had to rule on this - computers up to this point have always been markets for direct sales *without* a compulsory intermediary. Even games consoles, where all developers had to kick a percentage of revenue up to the console makers (who again, sold consoles at a loss to create volume for developers to sell into), there was retail competition between retail games stores.

That said, it would be surprising if it was an American court that prompted significant change on this. More likely it will be a European court, as has been the case with Apple now being required to submit to mandatory 3rd party arbitration on App store disputes with developers. The whole "they signed Apple's contract, so whatever Apple says goes" bollocks doesn't wash there.

 

[Ethosik]

No. "We". Don't. Don't fall into this trap of childish thinking that laws have to be applied to everything identically, or that everything is just a slippery slope to everything else.

Apple's market for App distribution for smartphones is fundamentally different to games console markets. Smartphones are more like general purpose computers than they are like games consoles (Apple's "what's a computer?" campaign). General purpose computers are not locked down to a single appstore, and there's no reason iOS should be, either.

Or...

If Apple's iOS appstore absolutely can't possibly coexist with other appstores... it should be regulated as a common carrier, on an auditable cost-recovery-only basis.

Also, you suggest all other markets would have to be restructured to break exclusionary horizontal and vertical integration, like that's a bad thing. e.g the car example where I can choose to replace any parts I like with third party parts, and have it warranty serviced by anyone I like, and manufacturers are required to provide diagnostic tools on a FRAND basis.

Actual lawyers fought Apple's case against the US government when Apple was convicted of conspiring to fix the price of eBooks. Lawyers are wrong statistically 50% of the time.

Seriously, did you watch the video or not? There are many arguments from Epic that are just false. Their comparison with the iPhone apps is not valid because Android exists. And their entire argument that "millions of people use iPhones so we will lose out on sales" is just BS. The video explains this. What did Epic do on PC? They went after the BIGGEST distributer in gaming - Steam. Everybody has steam and everybody loves steam and prefers steam. Yet they went after it anyway. So that iPhone argument is completely invalid with their history of PC situations.

I seriously do not want this to happen to Apple. I use iPhones ONLY because of this locked down environment. If it becomes as open as Android is, then why pay $1,000 when I can get a $500 Android phone for the same experience?!

Phones are not computers. You can't make the same comparison. If malware gets on your computer and takes it down, that is not as risky as if your phone gets malware and you need to call 911 but CANT. Phones need to be treated as phones first, not "general purpose computers".

 

[Maximara]

Seriously, did you watch the video or not? There are many arguments from Epic that are just false.

Not only false but downright bizarre.

Their comparison with the iPhone apps is not valid because Android exists.

Right. They are trying to narrow the market to the point where their own exclusive agreements would be considered "monopolies".

And their entire argument that "millions of people use iPhones so we will lose out on sales" is just BS.

Not to mention nonsensical. My sister-in-law and my brother own a iPhone and an iPad and the only Fortnite they know about is 14 days. Yes that is a pun.

The video explains this. What did Epic do on PC? They went after the BIGGEST distributer in gaming - Steam. Everybody has steam and everybody loves steam and prefers steam. Yet they went after it anyway. So that iPhone argument is completely invalid with their history of PC situations.

Right more over Epic is trying to claim that Google is a monopoly even though the Android does allow side loading.

Phones are not computers. You can't make the same comparison. If malware gets on your computer and takes it down, that is not as risky as if your phone gets malware and you need to call 911 but CANT. Phones need to be treated as phones first, not "general purpose computers".

Actually per U.S. v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902-03 (8th Cir. 2011) a smartphone is a computer but that means the iPhone must also be compared with an iMac which does allow side loading. Ie Epic is effectively shooting itself in the foot with a machine gun.